Instigator / Pro
2
1500
rating
4
debates
25.0%
won
Topic
#4558
There is NO god. (Specifically Christianity though I think there are NO gods at all)
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
2
0
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
Azeal
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 13,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
won
Description
A little backstory here, I grew up with a VERY religious family. I believed in God (the Christianity one) for a very long time. but when I reached high school, it finally dawned on me that I was believing in a God that would send anyone to hell (suffering in horrible agony for the rest of existence BTW) for just not believing in them. if ol daddy in the sky DOES exist, I'm about to royally piss him off. There is NO god, change my mind.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Just going to be short here at first (I would like to hear your points to have something to go off of)
Before the age of modern science, Humans had no knowledge about atoms, protons, neutrons, or electrons. They were clueless as to how the world around them really worked, so to explain it to the people around them, they created a story. Story's explaining lightning from Zeus, Plants from Demeter, and so on. God, (When I say "God" I'm referring to the Christian one) was one of these stories. His story was passed down from generation to generation, slowly being warped and changed until it was finally written down in the Bible. Even the bible though could simply be altered by whoever was translating it or writing a new copy. According to History Collection.com, "word counts differ substantially from bible to bible." Acts 8: 37 is so controversial that it's often just omitted from the bible itself in some copies.
I personally also find it strange that our only "firsthand account" of Gods actions is the bible. If he and his followers really did do so many miracles, wouldn't there be Thousands of letters to relatives depicting Jesus, thousands of records of the route of his travels, and other entire books and scrolls depicting all of this? (Other than the bible of course.) Nope, nothing but the bible, which has become so changed over the years that now people can use it as an excuse for Racism, and violence. Pair that with the fact that God or his miracles haven't made an appearance for hundreds of years, and you have a recipe for Atheism.
I would like to hear your side before I continue further, Goodluck.
Con
#2
Note: This is my first of possibly a board of debates to attempt to recollect my potential, such as my debating skills last year. I am going to try to be as elaborate as I can, at the same time not being so extraneous that it either exceeds the character limit or weakens my own case conversely.
1. What is the topic, really?
Short answer:
There is NO god. (Specifically Christianity though I think there are NO gods at all)
Though, does this really answer anything meaningfully? Not by much, especially since the topic is possibly purposefully phrased in such a confusing manner. Though, even if the structure of the topic statement is the product of an accidental mind-error, we will treat it as if the topic is purposely phrased like this regardless due to the fact that this is all the webpage has to offer.
Long answer:
Let's start by dissecting said topic.
There is NO god.
That is a sentence. With a period. A gramatically correct and independent sentence like "This is my little brother, George." and unlike "With a period.". Therefore, the burden of proof directly involves proving this statement correct, or that the failure to do so would result in a lack of victoriousness for Pro.
Not only is this sentence, if you have got eyes or any other mechanisms for vision, you would see that this statement is not:
- God does not exist.
- There is a lack of God.
- It is false that "God Exists".
This part of the topic is specifically being phrased like this, or so we assume. The structure of "There is NO god" would allow an interpretation of that the sentence declares an entity called "NO god" to be existent, whereas such an aspect remains nowhere to be seen for any of the three substitutes shown above. This portion of the sentence is specifically phrased in this way to allow so, thus speculating the obvious intent of the Pro position who instigated with it.
Especially, Pro appropriately utilized capitalization on the word "no" so it is distinguishable from the common "there is no god" or even "there is No god" suggests that Pro intends to leave open the interpretation that the "NO" in the topic is to be treated as a distinct instance of a distinct idea compared to "no", in which the latter is commonly used in renouncing manners.
And yes, capitalization does matter. For example:
- I am going to Sue Andrews' company.
- I am going to sue Andrews' company.
The former sentence suggests that there is an individual called Sue Andrews, and the speaker intends to go to Sue Andrews' occupational coordinates. The latter assumes that the individual concerned is called Andrews, and Andrews' company is to be sued by the speaker. Capitalization does make a difference here.
To give another example:
- The telescope is fast.
- The telescope is FAST.
The former sentence suggests that the referred telescope travels with great velocities. The latter suggests that the referred telescope is this one in China. To derail on a small scale, FAST does not move at all if we consider the Asian plate tectonic as the reference frame.
And yes, you do have to press either "shift" or "CapsLock" to capitalize a letter, and neither the non-space character before "NO" or after it is capital, so we can be sure that the act is as premeditated as the average abortion in America as Pro has to specifically press another key on the keyboard. Oh well, we haven't stated what does "NO" mean as opposed to "no".
What does it mean? Well, it turns out, the only entry I can find for both letters capital is Nitrous Oxide. Every other application of the same two letters involves the second letter being probably lowercase, as in the case of "No.", meaning "number". Bottom line, "NO" is something and it is different from "no" just like "Sue" and "sue" are different.
We have only gone through the first half of the topic, aye? The next half is not even a sentence.
(Specifically Christianity though I think there are NO gods at all)
Neither is this of correct grammatics, nor is there a period, so this part of the topic is not only not suitable to be a standalone second statement, but it cannot be meaningfully be an addendum to the initial section. Don't know how? Just look at these examples.
- (Specifically Christianity though I think there are NO gods at all) There is NO god.
- There is (Specifically Christianity though I think there are NO gods at all) NO god.
- There is NO god (Specifically Christianity though I think there are NO gods at all).
You can try the rest of the positions, but it becomes obvious that none of the position makes a gramatically sound statement, let alone one provable. We cannot prove something that does not make any sense. Therefore to continue in settling on "what shall we do next?", we have 2 options at this crossroads.
- Consider the topic not provable at all, as the second part of the topic is in no way integrable into any sentence or become its own sentence meaningfully;
- OR to drop said second part, and make the first part the only statement required for proof or disproof.
I choose the second one, because the first one is no fun. Therefore, the topic becomes, or loops back to:
There is NO god.
Now let's move on.
2. "Argument"
We have settled that due to how the topic is phrased, "NO" is something entirely different from "no" as its own thing, therefore, the topic becomes something like:
There exists no nitrous oxide god.
Speaking of which, the lack of an article before "NO god", definite or indefinite, is still gramatically precedented. Check out these examples.
- And God said, Let there be light.
- There is no peace.
And...guess what? The advocate for the positive wrote an argument completely unproductive to what said advocate should advocate by attempting to disprove an instance of God, the Christian version of God. This "argument" at best does nothing because it is unrelated to an "NO god" and at worst truncates Pro's own case since Pro attempted to disprove a possible form of God. Yeah.
There is no established Burden of Proof prior. Therefore, as Con, all that is there to do is to prove the inverse of the topic, not "there is NO god", but merely "that the statement 'there is NO god' is untrue/unsupported". So far, I have shown just that. I rest my case and await my opponent's response the next round. Have a nice day reading and be warned of yourself what this debate will possibly become. Thank you.
Round 2
Pro
#3
1. Cons argument
Simply put, disappointing. It was a very long and detailed description on the meaning of "NO" and how the sentence "There are NO gods" is not grammatically correct. Grammatically is the key word here, as later in the argument they claim that their goal was to prove that sentence untrue/false and that they had successfully done that. I'm sorry to say but grammatically correct and correct are two very different things. for example, The SKY iS BluE! is correct yet not grammatically correct. There was not a single sentence in the argument working to forward their side, it was just a glorified grammar lesson in terms of importance to the topic.
2. What is a god?
There are three definitions for god,
A. The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
B. A superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes, a deity.
The third, "an adored, admired, or influential person." does not apply to the topic.
3. Burden of proof
I will admit that the burden of proof was left mostly up to interpretation, so allow me to propose this one:
Pro: Must prove that no Gods or deities exist.
Con: Must prove that at least one God or deity does exist.
4. My argument
Just two points here as I haven't seen any of Cons points yet, so I have very little to go off of.
1. Gods have been inactive. We live in a world where information is shared extremely quickly with the internet and cameras, and we have seen nothing. Yet in nearly all pantheons, gods are constantly interacting with humans, changing fates, birthing heroes, and just doing god stuff. I find it very hard to believe that no undeniable miracles or evidence has shown up if any gods really do exist.
2. Numbers. There are so many religions with so many gods in them. Knowing that there is one truth to the question, that means only one if any of the religions on earth is actually correct, so the others prove that religions can simply form from falsehood. Maybe religions simply interpret the same stories though, but if that was the case, all religions would almost certainly have many similarities, yet all the major religions and many of the smaller ones differ so drastically from one another that this seems impossible.
Con
#4
Rebuttal 1: What is the topic?
I simply maintain that "There is NO god." is a grammatically correct sentence, which is the topic, and is both semantically and pragmatically different from "There is no god.". Without specifications on what the topic really is(in which we will then decide whether if it is moving the goalpost) in the first Pro argumentation, we shall treat "There is NO god.", not "There is no god.", as the topic statement that we will be focused on for the rest of the length of this webpage.
It was a very long and detailed description on the meaning of "NO" and how the sentence "There are NO gods" is not grammatically correct.
That is a strawman argument. I argued that "There is NO god." is a grammatically correct sentence and is distinct from "There is no god.". Not only did Pro not provide any evidence on why this sentence is somehow gramatically fallible, Pro also misinterpreted what appears to be Pro's own title as "There are NO gods", with plural forms of English terms.
"It was a very long and detailed description on the meaning of 'NO'" was a false allegation too. For the most part of the R1 Con argumentation, I basically use the space to explain that "NO" and "no" are different, without attempting to assign a meaningful description to the former until much later. I do not need sourcing, you can just scroll your mouse wheel up like 4 seconds and there you see it.
for example, The SKY iS BluE! is correct yet not grammatically correct.
Ah, the irony, as the sentence began with not a capital letter. Moving on. This sentence is neither correct nor grammatically correct due to the term "iS" being obviously different from "is" and thus cannot serve as "is". Thus, this sentence has no verb, meaning that it cannot ever make sense pragmatically or semantically.
There was not a single sentence in the argument working to forward their side, it was just a glorified grammar lesson in terms of importance to the topic.
Well, the topic is the topic, and "NO" and "no" are different, so what do you have to argue with? Pro has to prove that "NO" and "no" refers to the same concept in order to have his interpretation anywhere close to the topic itself, which he has neglected. Then again, a regular house on regular materials built on Earth cannot have a second floor and not a first floor unless we redefine what a second floor is. Though, the fact that you need to press and release "Shift" or "CapsLock" to even type "NO" and not "no" speaks volumes about Pro's intention for the topic to include "NO", and not "no". It literally could not have been the product of a misclick, and Pro did not contend.
Rebuttal 2: Miscellaneous
2. What is a god?
Pro made around the first round without ever defining what a god is. If Pro can do it the second round, Pro could do it the last round and make Pro winning much easier. Except...that is moving the goalpost.
Also, irrelevant. Pro has yet to prove that NO god exists, possibly a nitrous oxide deity, but alas, no proof of anything that could be "NO god".
Also, irrelevant. Pro has yet to prove that NO god exists, possibly a nitrous oxide deity, but alas, no proof of anything that could be "NO god".
3. Burden of proof
Pro made around the first round without ever defining the actual burden of proof. On the contrary, I did last round.
There is no established Burden of Proof prior. Therefore, as Con, all that is there to do is to prove the inverse of the topic, not "there is NO god", but merely "that the statement 'there is NO god' is untrue/unsupported".
If Pro can change it the second round, Pro could do it the last round too and make Pro winning much easier. Except...that is moving the goalpost.
Also, irrelevant. Pro has yet to prove that NO god exists, possibly a nitrous oxide deity, but alas, no proof of anything that could be "NO god".
4. My argument
Saying this a third time, Pro has yet to prove that NO god exists, possibly a nitrous oxide deity, but alas, no proof of anything that could be "NO god".
Conclusions
- All criticism on what the topic might mean and on my interpretation of said string that serves as the topic have been settled and proven to be futile to dismantle said interpretation. Said interpretation is maintained.
- Pro did not prove the existence of NO god despite obviously intending to keeping the topic as so due to how the topic is typed.
- Therefore, the topic statement is unsupported. Vote Con. Thank you for reading this hunk of text.
Round 3
Pro
#5
1. Cons argument
Please, for my own sanity, just give me some points to go against! What you put for your argument is only dissecting mine, we're here to debate whether gods exist believe it or not, and I would personally like for you to state why people here should agree with you, and not just be petty in the process. you warned me in your first "argument" that I should "be warned of what this debate will become." I AM concerned, on whether or not we can get this debate back on track. I want you to really think before publishing your next argument please, good luck.
With nothing real to argue until Con shares their points, I guess I will explain/answer some things they talked about in their 2nd argument.
2. Explanations/Critiques
2A.
I argued that "There is NO god." is a grammatically correct sentence and is distinct from "There is no god."
You stated in your first argument that:
as Con, all that is there to do is to prove the inverse of the topic, not "there is NO god", but merely "that the statement 'there is NO god' is untrue/unsupported". So far, I have shown just that.
So you argued that "There is NO god" was untrue/unsupported by saying it was grammatically correct and distinct from "There is no god"?
2B.
This sentence is neither correct nor grammatically correct due to the term "iS" being obviously different from "is" and thus cannot serve as "is". Thus, this sentence has no verb, meaning that it cannot ever make sense pragmatically or semantically.
That makes literally no sense. The word "iS" is simply a slightly misspelled version of "is" and would serve the same purpose to anyone not critiquing the sentence's grammar, which you seem very fond of doing in place of an argument.
2C.
so what do you have to argue with?
My points and the burden of proof, which you may want to read.
2D.
Pro made around the first round without ever defining what a god is. If Pro can do it the second round, Pro could do it the last round and make Pro winning much easier. Except...that is moving the goalpost
But did I do it on the last round? No, I did it on the second, this is just invalid and useless.
2E.
Pro made around the first round without ever defining the actual burden of proof. On the contrary, I did last round."There is no established Burden of Proof prior. Therefore, as Con, all that is there to do is to prove the inverse of the topic, not "there is NO god", but merely "that the statement 'there is NO god' is untrue/unsupported."
No, you did not. What does Pro have to prove then? If "there is NO god" is false, then prove it with points.
2F.
- All criticism on what the topic might mean and on my interpretation of said string that serves as the topic have been settled and proven to be futile to dismantle said interpretation. Said interpretation is maintained.
- Pro did not prove the existence of NO god despite obviously intending to keeping the topic as so due to how the topic is typed.
- Therefore, the topic statement is unsupported. Vote Con. Thank you for reading this hunk of text.
- Criticism is very much maintained.
- At least I tried to prove anything.
- False, and vote Pro please.
3. Conclusion
- Con has yet to present their points and is instead simply coasting off criticism against Pro.
- Pro is the only one who has presented their points to forward their side.
- Con didn't even try to argue Pro's points.
- Pro is the better option to vote for, thank you and have a good day.
Con
#6
Rebuttal 1: Re:the purpose
Please, for my own sanity, just give me some points to go against!
Firstly, if my arguments are making the opposing side to go insane even though sanity or the loss thereof is not required within any step of the debating procedure, then it should be considered effective as it should as it weakens the orderliness and rigidness of the opponent's line of thought, as that is what reduced sanity does to a person(source).
Secondly, I did. And Pro did attempt to dismantle it in all three rounds. The central argument here is presented that:
- Pro did not prove the existence of NO god despite obviously intending to keeping the topic as so due to how the topic is typed.\
Yeah.
we're here to debate whether gods exist believe it or not
No, we are not, as evidently shown by the topic itself. Speaking of which, Pro did not put forth one single effective argument to show why "NO" is pragmatically the same as "no", so not even this "basic assumption" is true about the actual topic itself.
I AM concerned, on whether or not we can get this debate back on track.
If you can't get the debate back on track, you lose, that is how the way works on this site. In this case, because my case is strictly built on the topic statement as a string of letters and spaces and symbols while Pro's case is based on a vague misunderstanding of said string, who is back on track becomes clear as filtered liquid glass.
Pro needs to put actual proof on why "NO" and "no" are identical in this context. The next response is in the fourth round, in which in the last ever round neither Pro nor Con may create new points, where Pro cannot justify so at such a point. In other words, Pro has already given up in proving that the topic says what Pro think the topic says.
Rebuttal 2: Re:the re
So you argued that "There is NO god" was untrue/unsupported by saying it was grammatically correct and distinct from "There is no god"?
Not exactly. My point is proven due to Pro not putting forth any proof that "There is NO god" is true. All I did was separating "There is NO god" from "There is no god" in which Pro only attempted to prove the latter when it is not the actual topic. The lack of proof on the Pro side, along with the conceded Burden of Proof(Speaking of which, Pro's R2 BoP is based on "There is no god", something the topic is not, so it is obviously unreasonable and a fallacious move of the goalpost.) established at the end of the first round Con, results in the topic being unsupported and the setup favoring Con as of now.
The word "iS" is simply a slightly misspelled version of "is" and would serve the same purpose to anyone not critiquing the sentence's grammar,
The entire response in the 2B section is essentially the making of more than one claims without anything backing them sufficiently. Specifically, iS can refer to the Microsoft application iStock. More evidently, the logo for said application is an "iS". Therefore, the emergence of a counterexample:
- I think iS is just a regular stock photo app and there are better alternatives.
- I think is is just a regular stock photo app and there are better alternatives.
And yes, this ambiguity due to capitalization can occur thanks to "iS" and "is" referring to different concepts. Are they always like this? Not exactly, as "Ins" and "ins" both refers to Instagram. However, the specific example Pro has chosen to include has such a discrepancy, just like the property of the word's directory shifts between "NO" and "no".
No one writes "no" as "NO" specifically when a premeditated press of the CapsLk or Shift key is required before and/or after the typing of "NO", the same way no one writes "is" as "iS" meaningfully. And yes, any typo is the fault of the one who typed the typo, in which at this point it is too late to be corrected. In this case, I will not simply treat the topic as anything other than "There is NO god." as I was not told that there was a typo beforehand, and it is impossible for the contender to know that unless the instigator specified, which the instigator did not.
But did I do it on the last round? No, I did it on the second, this is just invalid and useless.
The problem is that Pro attempted to override a set of BoP without specifying why the proposed set beforehand is inappropriate. Here is the original BoP.
There is no established Burden of Proof prior. Therefore, as Con, all that is there to do is to prove the inverse of the topic, not "there is NO god", but merely "that the statement 'there is NO god' is untrue/unsupported".[CON R1]
Even worse, Pro's second set of BoP is off-topic, as it assumes the topic is "There is no god." which is not the topic.
Pro: Must prove that no Gods or deities exist.Con: Must prove that at least one God or deity does exist.
In other words, that BoP did nothing at best.
No, you did not. What does Pro have to prove then? If "there is NO god" is false, then prove it with points.
As the BoP proposed in CON R1 is technically still standing, that would not be necessary. ;)
Conclusions
- The topic is nevertheless still "There is NO god." and not "There is no god.".
- Pro assumes the topic means the latter and builds a set of BoP upon it, despite the fact that it is not the topic.
- Therefore, the BoP it intended to override, the one I established in R1, is the one to go with.
- According to that set of BoP, all I need to prove is that "There is NO god." is not supported. Pro did not point out anything wrong with it(and cannot do that anymore) and Pro did not prove "There is NO god." with any points at all due to a faulty assumption.
- Therefore, as of now, Con still has the upper hand.
Thank you for reading. Vote for CON.
Round 4
Pro
#7
1. Cons argument
Do you think you're going to win like this? I gave you a burden of proof when it was unclear, I presented points working toward my side, and I did my best to keep this debate on track. I failed, the moment you turned this debate into a grammar lesson and a space where the topic has been argued so little in place of plain pettiness. This entire damn debate has been turned on its head because you insist that "NO" is entirely different from "no" instead of debating the topic. I honestly just want this "debate" done with at this point.
2. My points
I won't even critique their argument. I'll just share why I think you should vote Pro here (my points)
- Gods have been inactive. We live in a world where information is shared extremely quickly with the internet and cameras, and we have seen nothing. Yet in nearly all pantheons, gods are constantly interacting with humans, changing fates, birthing heroes, and just doing god stuff. I find it very hard to believe that no undeniable miracles or evidence has shown up if any gods really do exist.
- Numbers. There are so many religions with so many gods in them. Knowing that there is one truth to the question, that means only one if any of the religions on earth is actually correct, so the others prove that religions can simply form from falsehood. Maybe religions simply interpret the same stories though, but if that was the case, all religions would almost certainly have many similarities, yet all the major religions and many of the smaller ones differ so drastically from one another that this seems impossible.
- We created gods to explain what we didn't understand. Back when we had no understanding of gravity, atoms, and quarks, the only way we could explain lightning or floods or earthquakes was by creating stories, lands, and gods we couldn't see that did all of that with motives far beyond our understanding. Now in this modern age we understand how and why those things happen, and our view of the universe we inhabit has increased ten-fold.
Those are the points I tried to use in this debate.
3. Conclusion of the debate
- Con has presented no points while Pro has.
- Con has repeatedly dodged talking about the topic.
- Con has not made a single attempt to prove their side correct.
- Con has focused on "NO" vs. "no" more than the topic itself.
- Con's arguments are disappointing.
- Vote for Pro, and have an amazing day recovering from reading this debate.
Con
#8
1. Responses(No new args)
My opponent has obeyed the rules of creating no new points in the fourth round, as it has always been done. Therefore, I will do the same and not create any new points here.
Do you think you're going to win like this?
I do.
I gave you a burden of proof when it was unclear, I presented points working toward my side, and I did my best to keep this debate on track.
Reminder, that:
- Pro presented no BoP frameworks in the description nor the first round argument.
- Con presented a BoP framework in the first round to which Pro did not attempt to object(Well, Pro did not explain why in an unexplained setup like this prior to the first round, the BoP defaults to Pro).
- Pro presented a BoP framework in the 2nd round that is not only attempting to override the established BoP to which Pro did not disagree with, but is based on the interpretation of "There is no god" which is different from "There is NO god", the latter being the title, therefore this BoP is entirely unreasonable as it is unreasonable to assume "NO" == "no".
- Con's original text of his BoP can be seen in R1 and R3.
I failed, the moment you turned this debate into a grammar lesson and a space where the topic has been argued so little in place of plain pettiness.
Again, as the contender, it is entirely not my fault to interpret the title as it is, interpreting "NO" as "NO" instead of automatically defaulting it to lowercase just because another interpretation exists when "no" is used in the place of "NO". Ironically, Pro's attempted BoP as well as Pro's entire case(which includes the entire section 2 of Pro's R4 argument) is built upon such a mix up. Pro is actually the one that did not obey what the topic says and is being off-topic due to a crucial misunderstanding of at least one aspect of the English language.
I did not turn it into a grammar lesson either. The main(and possibly only) point I have employed is that "NO" is simply different from "no", and they are not assumed to be interchangeable. Then again, if you think I am petty, try making your topic more foolproof, at least foolproof enough that you are actually arguing your own topic instead of some misinterpreted variation thereof.
This entire damn debate has been turned on its head because you insist that "NO" is entirely different from "no" instead of debating the topic.
Correct.
I honestly just want this "debate" done with at this point.
Wish granted, because it is the last round.
2. My points
I will not go into detail all the points in this section because they are based on the interpretation of the topic that is "There is no god" and the assumption that "NO" == "no". All these points are technically off-topic especially since that Pro did not justify why "NO" == "no" stands in this context. Again, I restate, the examples of "is" and "iS" as well as "sue" vs. "Sue" are plentiful enough to illustrate that capitalization can change the meaning of the word, meaning that individual analysis based on this case is required to prove that "NO" and "no" are the same. Such was never offered from the Pro advocate, okay.
Editor's note(which is just myself): The section below can serve as the conclusion section for the last argument.
- Con has presented no points while Pro has.
Ironically, all Pro's points are off-topic and Pro made little to no effort of connecting those points to the topic while Con's arguments are strictly based on the topic itself and has repeatedly demonstrated the connection towards the topic.
- Con has repeatedly dodged talking about the topic.
Ironically, Con is always talking about strictly the topic while it is Pro that promoted a misinterpretation of Pro's own topic that Pro instigated throughout the rounds.
- Con has not made a single attempt to prove their side correct.
Ironically, Con's efforts are nearly untouched due to Pro believing the topic is actually a misinterpretation of Pro's own topic while Pro's attempts are futile due to explained reasons.
- Con has focused on "NO" vs. "no" more than the topic itself.
You know why? Because that is all it takes to prove my point. It is the topic itself.
- Con's arguments are disappointing.
Pro, being the participant of this debate, cannot vote on this debate for entirely obvious reasons.
- Vote for Pro, and have an amazing day recovering from reading this debate.
Vote for Con, and have an amazing day reading this debate. And thanks to Azeal for this invaluable exercise of the mind amidst the sheer boredom in class. I very much appreciate it.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
In this case, Pro won by default. Con decided to go a different route and not really stick to the spirit of this debate but rather tried for the technical side of grammar and such. So, all in all, Con didn't even debate the idea of the topic given, even when the opening round made it obvious to what Pro was trying to do.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
This is an interesting one. Con's case rests on the assumption that if a statement is grammatically incorrect, it cannot be affirmed. Both sides propose completely different burdens of proof.
I find it questionable whether capitalization affects the meaning of the resolution in this case. If that's true, then none of oromagi's resolutions mean anything, but Pro never brings up this precedent. Capitalization can be used for emphasis, and I'm not sure whether that's grammatically incorrect or just stylistic.
These are arguments Pro doesn't make, but as a voter I have to weigh arguments against the resolution, and I do have some discretion in that regard. That said, I'm willing to let this debate take a non-conventional path.
My interpretation is that Pro supports the resolution, which is all that's necessary under Con's burden of proof. "ThE sKy Is BlUe" was enough to establish this point. Con can critique the grammar, but the meaning of the statement is clear enough to me as a voter that Pro's interpretation is reasonable. So I feel that the resolution was affirmed for all intensive purposes
No, this isn’t Toki Pona, and you would not call the current US president “Biden person.”
I prefer the idea being “Nitrogen monoxide god”.
A God named "NO"?
Exactly.
I feel like this debate was more about grammer and technicality rather than proving/disproving religion.
thank you😂
"If that's true, then none of oromagi's resolutions mean anything"
Well, I suppose if all words are capitalized, then it is acceptable that they all mean the same as if they were lowercase due to them being styled the same. In this case, the "NO" stand out meaning that it is a choice of wording to include the capitalized version instead of that of the lowercase.
👍``
I don't feel like voting right this moment,
Maybe won't later either,
I just wanted to post my thoughts on your round 1,
Not that my thoughts are great,
But I enjoy posting them anyhow sometimes, once thought of.
I would argue that not all Christians believe in Hell as some fire pit of eternal torment,
Nor do all Christians believe God literally resides in the Heavens/Sky.
I am unsure what you mean by the 'modern age of science,
That people were clueless as to how the world around them really worked,
Or that Humans had no knowledge about atoms,
"Democritus (/dɪˈmɒkrɪtəs/; Greek: Δημόκριτος, Dēmókritos, meaning "chosen of the people"; c. 460 – c. 370 BC) was an Ancient Greek pre-Socratic philosopher from Abdera, primarily remembered today for his formulation of an atomic theory of the universe.[1] None of his work has survived."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democritus
Of course Dēmókritos example can be rebutted, but Intelligence_06 takes debate another course.
. . .
The Old Testament, 'seems to me an impressive record of history, poetry, and philosophy,
I say 'seems, because I don't know that much of it.
. .
I don't think Jews look upon their religions writings the same some Christians do,
History is passed down through people, different history books exist, different science books,
But this is not to say their claims do not exist.
Even if it is not 'exact,
One person says there was a man named Dan who did this and that,
Another person says there was a man named Dann who did this and that,
We might say a man named Dan and a man named Dann could not have existed at the same time,
But 'roughly 'someone did,
If Dan/Dann had been a criminal at some crime scene,
Police would not say oh a word contradiction and ignore,
They would focus on there being a man at the crime scene, 'likely a man with a name possibly or similar to Dan/Dann.
. . . . . . . . .
"Non-Christian sources that are used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus include Jewish sources such as Josephus, and Roman sources such as Tacitus. These sources are compared to Christian sources such as the Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic Gospels. These sources are usually independent of each other (i.e., Jewish sources do not draw upon Roman sources), and similarities and differences between them are used in the authentication process.[10][11]
Some scholars estimate that there are about 30 surviving independent sources written by 25 authors who attest to Jesus."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus
2000 years ago, was a 'long time ago.
. . . . . . . . .
What qualifies as a miracle,
And who can say what 'happened long ago?
Take the Red Sea,
Waters may recede provided circumstance provides,
Provide a crossing,
Or return and drown an army.
Modern miracles for some people, include merely surviving a car crash,
Problem with these arguments of mine here, of course are an Atheistic bent,
One might argue an invisible gardener absurd,
Or that my arguments are the opposite of anthromorphizing,
But I'm rambling, well, I'm not a Christian.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I suppose a different argument might be an event doesn't happen for a long period of time,
So people assume it never existed to begin with.
You're telling me
One of the most genuine compliments I have received over the past year. Flattery is intended to be exhibited.
This is one of the weirdest serious debates I've read 😂
Looking at my 3rd argument now it seems a little petty, especially at the end, sorry about that.
You're not likely to get my vote for such tactics.
I simply interpret topics as strings because they are presented as so, and when the opposing side insists this string means something, I prioritize analyzing the string itself and go from there.
It was back when I actually tried taking a debating class and on the last class I tried to be a little cheeky and got labeled “off-topic”. After that, I strove to argue what the topic is and only what the topic is so that it will absolutely never be off-topic, because, well, it is the topic itself, not some vague entity the opposing side thinks the topic is above.
So far, the captalized “NO” is enough reason for me to believe that what Pro thinks Pro is trying to argue is purposefully disconnected from what Pro made the title to be, even if it is an accident. But the title is set in stone, the Rosetta Stone of the ever-growing internet, and upon acceptance the mistake is way too late for correction.
When I have even just threshold motivation, I accept every topic that is obviously exploitable. If you ask why I don’t debate such as Whiteflame, it is because he makes his arguments, well, not so easily acceptable. Still, learning how topics can be exploited just based on how they are written is in my opinion a good strategy for new users, like I did for the past years.
I view Intelligence_06 as an intelligent person,
Their arguments 'do make sense,
And it's fair for people to encourage other's to use airtight debate titles, definitions, description.
But I prefer more laid back debates myself,
Would rather point out such in the comments if it 'really needs be,
And think it more 'friendly, to debate people as they 'intended to be debated.
That last part honestly made my day, I was worried that Cons arguments made more sense to other people than they did to me.
@DavidAZ
I think myself, many later Atheists only give slight or shallow thought to religion and God in their childhood and teenage years,
Maybe even their adult years.
I also think many, (Though not all) are bitter,
Though reasons vary.
The one's who 'are bitter though,
Well, when one is angry, even less likely they 'think about the arguments given by their opponent,
Just applies to most people on any topic,
Viewing the other as the enemy, or something hateful, stupid, reduces objective consideration.
. . .
I'm not bitter about religion, then 'or now,
But I didn't think about it 'much as a kid,
Nor when I questioned it,
Nor now while I don't believe it.
@Intelligence_06
Why do you debate like this?
Azeal's meaning is clear enough to me.
Jamgiller, I do think, and know myself, that a child does regurgitate what their parents tell them. Usually the faith is not repeated when the child is rebelling against the parent(s) and their way of life. This is stemmed from a environment that is not loving and full of power or control, which is usually the case with most religious homes. The reason for this is that I believe most religious people don't really care about God as much as how the religion soothes their own conscience and guilt OR the idea of being a super-spiritual giant and being able to hear from God directly.
So if a child becomes baptized at an early age on their own will, it's usually because their parents taught them to do so, which is good, but there will become a time that the child will decide themselves if they will stay in that way of life. Since being a Christian is supposed to make people walk righteously (obviously nobody is perfect, but they should strive for it), then it should not harm others around them, including their children, but again, most people don't really care about the things of God, but rather what they can extract from God and His church.
So, Azeal, the reason I asked about your parent's treatment to you is because I have a brother who talks just like you and when we talk about religion years later, he doesn't come from rational thinking, it comes from anger and bitterness. Therefore, he will use any statement he can to justify his way of thought, regardless of how it sounds or where it comes from.
Anyways, good luck on the debate.
My family was and is VERY religious, and I chose to not be in 7th grade.
Do you think that young children from baptism to confirmation are only regurgitating what their parents tell them?
I'd like to jump in the comments here and say that if your belief in God stopped at high school, then you never thought about God at all. You only regurgitated what your parents told you. Around the age of 16 or so, a person will start to become independent and start to think for themselves. So really, if you stopped believing in God that early, then you never really thought about God and your description proves this.
I'd like to ask, how did your parents treat you? Because this is a classic example of teen rebellion to the parents and not a rational thinker.
Im interested to see how this debate goes
Doesn't matter.
Is the debate here specifically about Christianity or about God in general?
Glad to hear your story!